|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Oct-23-15
 | | MissScarlett: Going by that video, there's nothing wrong with the lighting. You'd think someone playing for a Siberian team would be attuned to twilight. |
|
| Oct-23-15 | | devere: <HeMateMe: still no handshake, huh?> If someone accuses you of cheating and fails to either prove the allegation or retract, why would you ever shake his hand? We are lucky that Kramnik is even willing to play Topalov at all. In similar circumstances I would not be. Great game by Kramnik. |
|
Oct-23-15
 | | HeMateMe: dude, it was ten years ago, and it might have been Toppy's dip shid manager behind all of that, not Topalov. Besides, Kramnik DID walk into the bathroom about 30 times in 3 hours. What if that happened today? Wouldn't other chess players be somewhat suspicious? |
|
| Oct-23-15 | | Absentee: Even if the idea was Danailov's, Topalov was a big boy and could have chosen not to play along with that charade. |
|
Oct-23-15
| | MissScarlett: It's all water under the U-bend. |
|
Oct-24-15
| | MissScarlett: Veselin was discombogulated. |
|
| Oct-24-15 | | Hawkman: 30 times in 3 hours is a complete myth. It never happened. |
|
Oct-24-15
| | HeMateMe: ok, give us some bathroom numbers and a source, please. |
|
| Oct-24-15 | | Hawkman: "The FIDE Appeals Committee, after viewing the video tapes, found that the frequency of Kramnik's visits to the toilet had been exaggerated," Kramnik - Topalov World Championship Match (2006) |
|
Oct-25-15
| | HeMateMe: Maybe he had an American mail order bride stashed away back there? |
|
| Oct-25-15 | | Absentee: Kramnik suffers from a rare form or arthritis. He couldn't stay seated for too long. |
|
Oct-25-15
| | HeMateMe: but--he can, now? |
|
| Oct-25-15 | | gazzawhite: <Fishy> Carlsen helped Anand (not Kramnik) in his WC match against Topalov. In fact, Carlsen also helped Anand in the 2008 WC match (against Kramnik). |
|
| Oct-25-15 | | Shams: My recall is the same as <Fishy>'s; namely, that Anand had (some) help from Kasparov, Kramnik and Carlsen in the run-up to the Topalov match. I remember thinking at the time that the chess elite did not want to see Danailov anywhere near the title. |
|
| Oct-25-15 | | Hawkman: Shams is correct. |
|
| Oct-26-15 | | Absentee: <Shams: My recall is the same as <Fishy>'s; namely, that Anand had (some) help from Kasparov, Kramnik and Carlsen in the run-up to the Topalov match. I remember thinking at the time that the chess elite did not want to see Danailov anywhere near the title.> Actually, your recall is better. It was Anand, as you said, not Kramnik, who was assisted by Carlsen and others. |
|
| Oct-26-15 | | Hawkman: "In a post-match interview Anand mentioned that in addition to his normal team of seconds, he also received help in preparation from Magnus Carlsen, Garry Kasparov and Vladimir Kramnik."
Anand - Topalov World Chess Championship (2010) Agreed |
|
| Oct-26-15 | | Shams: <Absentee> Well now that we know my recall is fine I'll get to work on my reading comprehension. |
|
| Oct-26-15 | | Kaspablanca: Sokrates, dont forget Kasparov-Karpov and Kasparov-Shirov. |
|
| Oct-27-15 | | Sokrates: <Kaspablanca: Sokrates, dont forget Kasparov-Karpov and Kasparov-Shirov.> I don't. As I wrote examples of personal combats are numerous. The reasons for them, though, is varying. We all know that the Kasparov-Karpov calamities were caused both by the system (Karpov pro - Kasparov contra) and the huge difference in their personalities. |
|
| Oct-28-15 | | Petrosianic: <HeMateMe>: <Besides, Kramnik DID walk into the bathroom about 30 times in 3 hours. What if that happened today? Wouldn't other chess players be somewhat suspicious?> This was gone over innumerable times in 2006, and the answer is the same as it always was. It's okay to be suspicious. It's not okay to go over the Tournament Committee's head, and accuse your opponent publicly without proof. That's why Topalov was censured by the Ethics Committee, and why his reputation is still shady today (although people might have forgotten it if he had just let it drop and not kept it going). It's also kind of cuckoo to think that the existence of electrical wiring in the walls of a building proves your case, but I digress. |
|
| Oct-28-15 | | Absentee: Believing that your opponent's cheating if they go in and out of the restroom is perfectly reasonable in a large, low-level swiss, where the security is loose by necessity and they don't even check your phone. Not so much in a world championship match, where everything is organized and strictly monitored by an international body and numerous observers. Unless you buy Team Topalov's allegations that there was some kind of conspiracy to prevent him from beating Kramnik, complete with death threats, airport lockdowns and semiabductions. |
|
| Oct-29-15 | | columbeau: discombobulated is more accurate, but it's true it's a long word |
|
| Nov-01-15 | | Ulhumbrus: In the position after 10...0-0 White can hardly claim any advantage, if any at all then at any rate not enough to justify starting an attack. Nevertheless he makes an attacking move by playing 11 Qg4? This attack is not based upon a positional advantage, at least not any remotely sufficient to justify it. This attack is unsound then, and can be forecast to fail. However Topalov's response 11...f5?! may be too optimistic and may pass any advantage back to White. The right way to handle White's attempt to attack may be to follow Lasker's advice, namely, <to disregard the attack and to develop the reserves> One example of such a reply is 11...Nc6! and now any advantage real or imagined may have begun to shift to Black. |
|
| Apr-18-16 | | drleper: <Ulhumbrus: Nevertheless he makes an attacking move by playing 11 Qg4? This attack is not based upon a positional advantage, at least not any remotely sufficient to justify it. This attack is unsound then, and can be forecast to fail.> Annotating 11.Qg4 as a poor move is a bit dogmatic. I mean what would you suggest instead of it? It seems like a logical move, if white can bring the queen to a threatening square without repercussion, why not? On my machine 11.Qg4 is Stockfish 7's first choice and the only one it thinks maintains some semblance of an edge (with its other suggestions being Qh5, Re1, or Qf3). Topalov's 11...f5 reply is also the engine's first choice (although I know that move has been criticised). By the way, your Nc6 idea is not actually working in light of 11...Nc6? 12.Bh6 Bf6 13.Qe4! and drops the exchange. Black has some tricks to try, but in the end white keeps the X without worry. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 29.Rxd5